11 Pasion vs Melegrito

Facts: Respondent Simplicio Melegrito filed a complaint for forcible entry against the Bueno
sisters with the MCTC. Respondent claimed that the Bueno sisters constructed a 2-story residential
structure on his land through stealth and strategy and without his knowledge and consent. He
further claims that despite notice and demand, the Bueno sisters refused to leave and remove the
structure.

MCTC ordered the Bueno sisters to vacate the premises and pay damages to respondent.
RTC reversed and ordered dismissal of the case.
CA reinstated the MCTC judgment which became final.

On remand, the MCTC issued a writ of execution (upon motion of respondent). Also, MCTC
granted respondent’s motion for the issuance of a writ of demolition. An alias writ of demolition
was issued directing the sheriff to demolish the improvements erected by the Bueno sisters.

Petitioner Nora Bueno Pasion, the agricultural tenant on a portion of the land and sister of the
Bueno sisters filed a Complaint for Injunction with WPI and TRO against the Judge and the
Provincial Sheriff to restrain the enforcement of the writ of demolition. The 20-day TRO was
granted but the preliminary injunction was denied.

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari (65) with the CA imputing grave abuse to the Judge in
allowing a writ of demolition to be enforced against her although she was not a party to the
ejectment case.

Issue: whether petitioner is entitle to a writ of preliminary injunction to stay the demolition
of the improvements erected by the Bueno sisters

Ruling: No. It was indicate that the house which is now the subject of a writ of demolition,
was erected by the sisters of the petitioner and not by petitioner herself. On this score alone,
public respondent Judge denied petitioners application for injunction.

The rule is well-entrenched that the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction as an
ancillary or preventive remedy to secure the right of party in a pending case rests upon the
sound discretion of the trial court.

Also, it is worthy to note that in this case, petitioners grounds in support of the petition
calls for an evaluation of the evidence presented which is not within the province of
certiorari.

12 Ella vs Salanga

Facts: The suit was for specific performance, to compel payment of the sum of P52,606.50 as price
of the land allegedly purchased by the government under a perfected sales contract with the
plaintiffs.
After the complaint was filed, a writ of preliminary injunction was issued by the presiding Judge
Dumaual restraining the defendants from further negotiating with any party other than the plaintiffs
for the acquisition of land to be used as sanitarium site, and from using, committing, engaging,
obligating and disbursing the amount of P52,606.50 already specifically earmarked and obligated
in favor of the plaintiffs, or from violating the plaintiffs' contractual rights, until further orders
from the Court.

One of the respondents filed a motion to dissolve the writ of preliminary injunction issued by Judge
Dumaual. The plaintiffs opposed in an omnibus motion.

Resolving the several motions of the Judge Salanga sustained his order transferring the case from
Narvacan to his sala in Vigan and lifted the preliminary injunction previously granted ex-parte,
upon the filing of a cash bond by Caridad Aguila in the amount of P20,000.00.

On November 18, 1964 this petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction was
filed, questioning the above order of Judge Salanga.

Issue: Whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion on the part of Judge Salanga in lifting
the preliminary Injunction previously granted ex-parte

Ruling: No. The dissolution of the writ of injunction upon the ground stated and after the filing of
a bond is allowed under section 6 of Rule 58. It rests upon the sound discretion of the court, and
we are not prepared to say that such discretion has been abused in this case. The damage that it
could cause to the petitioner is not irreparable, being subject to compensation in money. And a
further consideration that cannot be ignored at this stage is that two of the original plaintiffs, co-
owners of the land which was the subject of the earlier negotiations with the government, have
sold their shares to a third party, as a result of which there is a distinct possibility that the said land
may no longer be suited for the purpose for which it was intended.

13 Lasala vs. Fernandez

Facts: The land subject of the civil case was purchased by the plaintiffs from the Bacolod Branch
of the Philippine National Bank. As a result Transfer Certificate of Title was issued by the Register
of Deeds in the name of the plaintiffs. The land was mortgaged, to the Philippine National Bank
by Luis Pillado, father of Remigio Pillado, to secure the payment of a loan of P500. Upon failure
of the mortgagor to pay the indebtedness, the land was sold, pursuant to the provisions of Act No.
3135, and the purchaser at the sale was the Philippine National Bank, Bacolod Branch. Upon
purchase of the said property by Estela Francisco de Lasala and Vivencio Lasala, A civil case was
filed by the latter for the recovery of possession of the land from the defendants, the collection of
damages for the illegal occupation of said land, and for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction during the pendency of the action.

Issue: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a a writ of preliminary injunction during the pendency of
the action as against the respondents
Ruling: No. The purpose of a writ of preliminary injunction is to maintain or preserve the status
quo of the parties in relation to the subject matter litigated by them during the pendency of the
action or case.1

The respondent Remigio Pillado against whom the writ is issued has been in possession of the
litigated lot. Before him his parents had been in possession of the same. The petitioners have never
been in possession thereof. Such being the case, the respondents' possession of the lot pending
judicial determination of the ownership thereof must not be disturbed.